+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 18
-
11-09-2008 11:36 AM #1
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- Abingdon, MD
- Posts
- 7,764
Who is the best 1B'man of the 'Recent Era'?
Who is the best 1B'man of the 'Recent Era', incorporating players that played from 1970 through today?
Players that have not played at least ten seasons are ineligible.
-
11-09-2008 01:00 PM #2
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- NoVA
- Posts
- 2,350
Eddie Murray certainly is a good one. Pujols should be on this list aswell.
Originally Posted by Greg Pappas
-
11-09-2008 02:32 PM #3
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Baltimore/College Park, about 50/50
- Posts
- 498
Palmeiro has to be mentioned as well, despite steroids, but Pujols hasnt played ten seasons.
-
11-09-2008 02:37 PM #4
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- Abingdon, MD
- Posts
- 7,764
Murray would be my choice off the top of my head. Originally Posted by BRob51
Pujols is ineligible, but will likely be the man in a couple of seasons.
-
11-09-2008 02:52 PM #5
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Philadelphia, PA
- Posts
- 14,446
Murray easy. I wouldn't give Pujols the automatic edge after 10 years, although it appears that he will end up enjoying a better career than Eddie.
-
11-09-2008 05:25 PM #6
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
- Posts
- 2,479
My vote is for Jeff Bagwell.
-
11-09-2008 09:02 PM #7
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Location
- Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
- Posts
- 30,458
Frank Thomas.
And no "DHs don't count..."
-
11-09-2008 09:15 PM #8
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Posts
- 29,981
Yeah, I was gonna say Thomas... Originally Posted by BaltimoreTerp
Frank Thomas.
And no "DHs don't count..."
Bagwell?
-
11-09-2008 09:44 PM #9
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Camden, DE
- Posts
- 25,611
I'm going with Thomas because his peak was so dominant. His career value is about the same as Eddie's.
-
11-10-2008 12:54 PM #10
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Location
- SoMd
- Posts
- 30,731
I'm going with Eddie because he could actually field. But Thomas is a strong candidate because there was a time, in the 1990s, when you could talk about Thomas being in the same class as a hitter with Ruth and Williams. Originally Posted by mweb08
-
11-10-2008 03:38 PM #11
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Halifax, NS
- Posts
- 2,387
I rate Thomas around 60, Bagwell 75, Murray 90. So I'll go with Thomas, Bagwell if Thomas is ineligible.
-
11-10-2008 04:47 PM #12
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Posts
- 2,746
At his peak, Don Mattingly was probably as good as anybody. But his peak was short.
-
11-10-2008 04:49 PM #13
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Posts
- 5,264
1st goes to Eddie of course but Steve Garvey deserves some consideration.
-
11-10-2008 04:57 PM #14
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Northern Jersey
- Posts
- 9,217
I will go with Bagwell. The dude never had a bad season until his very last. And even in the last few his shoulders were so bad I couldn't believe he walk out on the field.
-
11-10-2008 05:12 PM #15
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Location
- SoMd
- Posts
- 30,731
Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel
Mattingly and Garvey both had the problem of never drawing a walk. They both peaked around 50 a year, so even the year Mattingly hit .350 he didn't have a .400 OBP. Garvey made 450 more outs than any other first baseman of the 1965-1990 era. And once Mattingly's decline came, his numbers were completely hollow. You can get away with a .040 separation in AVG and OBP when you're hitting .330 with 30 homers, not so much when it's .256 with five. Originally Posted by sangar
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Bookmarks